If Russia avoids Communism in 1917 & helps Greece fulfill the Megali Idea after the end of World War I in exchange for unlimited Russian/Slavic immigration into Constantinople & Greek Anatolia, just how many Russians/Slavs do you think would have actually moved there over the next several decades?

On 7/4/21 9:05 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> If Russia avoids Communism in 1917 & helps Greece fulfill the Megali
> Idea after the end of World War I in exchange for unlimited
> Russian/Slavic immigration into Constantinople & Greek Anatolia, just
> how many Russians/Slavs do you think would have actually moved there
> over the next several decades?

Russia wanted Constantinople for itself, and was not interested
in sending emigrants to Thrace or Anatolia. There might have been
some migration, but nothing significant. And probably most of
those would be ethnic Greeks; there were ~200K ethnic Greek refugees
from Russian territory in OTL. ITTL, they would have no particular
reason to move, but neither would anyone else, and they'd be more
attracted to the larger Greece.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:53:59 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/4/21 9:05 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > If Russia avoids Communism in 1917 & helps Greece fulfill the Megali
> > Idea after the end of World War I in exchange for unlimited
> > Russian/Slavic immigration into Constantinople & Greek Anatolia, just
> > how many Russians/Slavs do you think would have actually moved there
> > over the next several decades?
> Russia wanted Constantinople for itself, and was not interested
> in sending emigrants to Thrace or Anatolia.

Why was it not interested?

> There might have been
> some migration, but nothing significant. And probably most of
> those would be ethnic Greeks; there were ~200K ethnic Greek refugees
> from Russian territory in OTL. ITTL, they would have no particular
> reason to move, but neither would anyone else, and they'd be more
> attracted to the larger Greece.

Could the cheap land in Anatolia be attractive?
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Also, as a side question--what is the maximum realistic amount of Russian settler colonialism that you can see by the present-day with a PoD of January 1, 1914 or later?

WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com> on Mon, 5 Jul 2021 20:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:53:59 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 7/4/21 9:05 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> > If Russia avoids Communism in 1917 & helps Greece fulfill the Megali
>> > Idea after the end of World War I in exchange for unlimited
>> > Russian/Slavic immigration into Constantinople & Greek Anatolia, just
>> > how many Russians/Slavs do you think would have actually moved there
>> > over the next several decades?
>> Russia wanted Constantinople for itself, and was not interested
>> in sending emigrants to Thrace or Anatolia.
>
>Why was it not interested?

Reasons of Empire. To start with, restoring The City to Christian
rule justifies all sorts of political maneuvering.

I can see holding Thrace as "sub-urban Constantinople." But the
interior is just backwater.
>
>> There might have been
>> some migration, but nothing significant. And probably most of
>> those would be ethnic Greeks; there were ~200K ethnic Greek refugees
>> from Russian territory in OTL. ITTL, they would have no particular
>> reason to move, but neither would anyone else, and they'd be more
>> attracted to the larger Greece.
>
>Could the cheap land in Anatolia be attractive?

To some, I'm sure.

>Also, as a side question--what is the maximum realistic amount of Russian settler colonialism that you can see by the present-day with a PoD of January 1, 1914 or later?
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

WolfBear wrote:
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:53:59 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 7/4/21 9:05 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>>> If Russia avoids Communism in 1917 & helps Greece fulfill the Megali
>>> Idea after the end of World War I in exchange for unlimited
>>> Russian/Slavic immigration into Constantinople & Greek Anatolia, just
>>> how many Russians/Slavs do you think would have actually moved there
>>> over the next several decades?
>> Russia wanted Constantinople for itself, and was not interested
>> in sending emigrants to Thrace or Anatolia.
>
> Why was it not interested?
>
>> There might have been
>> some migration, but nothing significant. And probably most of
>> those would be ethnic Greeks; there were ~200K ethnic Greek refugees
>> from Russian territory in OTL. ITTL, they would have no particular
>> reason to move, but neither would anyone else, and they'd be more
>> attracted to the larger Greece.
>
> Could the cheap land in Anatolia be attractive?

What about eminent domain? There are personal property
rights and national property rights. When various tribes
ruled different areas in the 1500s to 1800s in the Americas
some of them did not do intensive agriculture or have personal
property rights for specific persons. In the New World, thus, at
least with respect to the U.S., if it got tribal lands
it assumed that it also got personal property rights from
tribal members that it could then sell or give to settlers.

For those that did have personal property in areas like
California, however, the personal property rights of the
Mexican landowners was respected when California passed
to the U.S. and Statehood. Many tribes in the U.S. since
the 1700s that have held on to tribal land claims have also
instituted personal property and real estate holdings within
tribal lands since that time.

In areas around Istanbul however, there are going to be a
lot of people that figured they had personal property rights
under the Turkish government.

If the Russian government is not going to respect this it is
a severe incentive for the local population to resist any
national Russian claims in the area, since this might directly
influence their personal and real property claims also. If
'all things are in common', but 'common' does not mean 'all
persons in Turkey' when it comes to the bureaucracy then
that is an even greater incentive to resist.

If the Russian government is going to respect this however it
may be lot cheaper to buy land outside of Istanbul for Russian
settlers than within Istanbul itself. The farmers may not want
to sell either and at equitable prices it might be that land
will still be cheaper in Siberia.

The idea that there is going to be cheap land available however
is very questionable unless the Russian government seizes it
without eminent domain.

>
>> --
>> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
>> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
>
> Also, as a side question--what is the maximum realistic amount of
Russian settler colonialism that you can see by the present-day with a
PoD of January 1, 1914 or later?
>

On 7/5/21 10:23 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> Why was it not interested?

Why should it be? Anatolia was not particularly desirable,
nor was it vacant, nor was it adjacent to Russia.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 7/7/2021 5:45 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/5/21 10:23 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> Why was it not interested?
>
> Why should it be? Anatolia was not particularly desirable,
> nor was it vacant, nor was it adjacent to Russia.
>

Two-for-three--MAYBE. Possibly one-for-three.

It was undeniably not vacant.

As for "desirable", Anatolia is probably *still* more livable than most
of European Russia and likely *all* of Asian Russia. If it has any big
problems, they're the type of water-rights-related ones that westerners
in North America have dealt with--and can likely be apparently-solved in
similar fashion [it took over a century for the Yanks to figure out that
no, they may NOT be able to be solved and they sure weren't by diverting
water in the ways that was done![.
It's no hotter than Russia in the summer, *less* humid on average, and
doesn't get insanely icy in the winter.

And it *is* adjacent. Soviet Armenia wasn't annexed from Turkey; it was
already part of the Russian Empire before 1917. It would be rather
difficult for Turkish Armenia to not have been adjacent to Russian,
since "greater Armenia" is pretty much a contiguous area.

Now "easily accessible" may be another thing altogether; the Ottomans
weren't really doing too well at getting rail to all parts of the
empire, after all, and Russia was moving at a better pace than them, but
also had most of its manpower involved in improving the right-of-way for
the Trans-Siberian so likely had little to spare for a line from, say,
Tblisi to Van or Trabzon.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:42:16 AM UTC-7, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 7/7/2021 5:45 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > On 7/5/21 10:23 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> >> Why was it not interested?
> >
> > Why should it be? Anatolia was not particularly desirable,
> > nor was it vacant, nor was it adjacent to Russia.
> >
> Two-for-three--MAYBE. Possibly one-for-three.
>
> It was undeniably not vacant.
>
> As for "desirable", Anatolia is probably *still* more livable than most
> of European Russia and likely *all* of Asian Russia. If it has any big
> problems, they're the type of water-rights-related ones that westerners
> in North America have dealt with--and can likely be apparently-solved in
> similar fashion [it took over a century for the Yanks to figure out that
> no, they may NOT be able to be solved and they sure weren't by diverting
> water in the ways that was done![.
> It's no hotter than Russia in the summer, *less* humid on average, and
> doesn't get insanely icy in the winter.
>
> And it *is* adjacent. Soviet Armenia wasn't annexed from Turkey; it was
> already part of the Russian Empire before 1917. It would be rather
> difficult for Turkish Armenia to not have been adjacent to Russian,
> since "greater Armenia" is pretty much a contiguous area.
>
> Now "easily accessible" may be another thing altogether; the Ottomans
> weren't really doing too well at getting rail to all parts of the
> empire, after all, and Russia was moving at a better pace than them, but
> also had most of its manpower involved in improving the right-of-way for
> the Trans-Siberian so likely had little to spare for a line from, say,
> Tblisi to Van or Trabzon.

Tbilisi-Trabzon-Sinope-Constantinople (Tsargrad) sounds like an excellent railway line--as does Tbilisi-Trabzon-Sinope-Bursa-Izmit.

Excellent analysis on the rest! And as for water, desalinization is a possible solution to this problem.

>
>
>
> --
> Chrysi Cat
> 1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
> Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
> Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 1:13:25 AM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
> On Thursday, July 8, 2021 at 12:42:16 AM UTC-7, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> > On 7/7/2021 5:45 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> > > On 7/5/21 10:23 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > >> Why was it not interested?
> > >
> > > Why should it be? Anatolia was not particularly desirable,
> > > nor was it vacant, nor was it adjacent to Russia.
> > >
> > Two-for-three--MAYBE. Possibly one-for-three.
> >
> > It was undeniably not vacant.
> >
> > As for "desirable", Anatolia is probably *still* more livable than most
> > of European Russia and likely *all* of Asian Russia. If it has any big
> > problems, they're the type of water-rights-related ones that westerners
> > in North America have dealt with--and can likely be apparently-solved in
> > similar fashion [it took over a century for the Yanks to figure out that
> > no, they may NOT be able to be solved and they sure weren't by diverting
> > water in the ways that was done![.
> > It's no hotter than Russia in the summer, *less* humid on average, and
> > doesn't get insanely icy in the winter.
> >
> > And it *is* adjacent. Soviet Armenia wasn't annexed from Turkey; it was
> > already part of the Russian Empire before 1917. It would be rather
> > difficult for Turkish Armenia to not have been adjacent to Russian,
> > since "greater Armenia" is pretty much a contiguous area.
> >
> > Now "easily accessible" may be another thing altogether; the Ottomans
> > weren't really doing too well at getting rail to all parts of the
> > empire, after all, and Russia was moving at a better pace than them, but
> > also had most of its manpower involved in improving the right-of-way for
> > the Trans-Siberian so likely had little to spare for a line from, say,
> > Tblisi to Van or Trabzon.
> Tbilisi-Trabzon-Sinope-Constantinople (Tsargrad) sounds like an excellent railway line--as does Tbilisi-Trabzon-Sinope-Bursa-Izmit.
>
> Excellent analysis on the rest! And as for water, desalinization is a possible solution to this problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Chrysi Cat
> > 1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
> > Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
> > Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

Possibly replace Sinope with Samsun here:

https://www.ezilon.com/maps/images/europe/road-map-of-Turkey.gif

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 4:45:37 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/5/21 10:23 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > Why was it not interested?
> Why should it be? Anatolia was not particularly desirable,
> nor was it vacant, nor was it adjacent to Russia.
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

It would be as desirable for Russians as California, Texas, or Florida would be to the US, no? As for it being vacant, it was not vacant but its cities and suburban areas could have significantly expanded, no? And a land connection between it and Russia could have been made through Georgia and Pontus.

On Wednesday, July 7, 2021 at 11:54:37 AM UTC-7, Trolidous wrote:
> WolfBear wrote:
> > On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 4:53:59 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> >> On 7/4/21 9:05 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> >>> If Russia avoids Communism in 1917 & helps Greece fulfill the Megali
> >>> Idea after the end of World War I in exchange for unlimited
> >>> Russian/Slavic immigration into Constantinople & Greek Anatolia, just
> >>> how many Russians/Slavs do you think would have actually moved there
> >>> over the next several decades?
> >> Russia wanted Constantinople for itself, and was not interested
> >> in sending emigrants to Thrace or Anatolia.
> >
> > Why was it not interested?
> >
> >> There might have been
> >> some migration, but nothing significant. And probably most of
> >> those would be ethnic Greeks; there were ~200K ethnic Greek refugees
> >> from Russian territory in OTL. ITTL, they would have no particular
> >> reason to move, but neither would anyone else, and they'd be more
> >> attracted to the larger Greece.
> >
> > Could the cheap land in Anatolia be attractive?
> What about eminent domain? There are personal property
> rights and national property rights. When various tribes
> ruled different areas in the 1500s to 1800s in the Americas
> some of them did not do intensive agriculture or have personal
> property rights for specific persons. In the New World, thus, at
> least with respect to the U.S., if it got tribal lands
> it assumed that it also got personal property rights from
> tribal members that it could then sell or give to settlers.
>
> For those that did have personal property in areas like
> California, however, the personal property rights of the
> Mexican landowners was respected when California passed
> to the U.S. and Statehood. Many tribes in the U.S. since
> the 1700s that have held on to tribal land claims have also
> instituted personal property and real estate holdings within
> tribal lands since that time.
>
> In areas around Istanbul however, there are going to be a
> lot of people that figured they had personal property rights
> under the Turkish government.
>
> If the Russian government is not going to respect this it is
> a severe incentive for the local population to resist any
> national Russian claims in the area, since this might directly
> influence their personal and real property claims also. If
> 'all things are in common', but 'common' does not mean 'all
> persons in Turkey' when it comes to the bureaucracy then
> that is an even greater incentive to resist.
>
> If the Russian government is going to respect this however it
> may be lot cheaper to buy land outside of Istanbul for Russian
> settlers than within Istanbul itself. The farmers may not want
> to sell either and at equitable prices it might be that land
> will still be cheaper in Siberia.
>
> The idea that there is going to be cheap land available however
> is very questionable unless the Russian government seizes it
> without eminent domain.
> >
> >> --
> >> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> >> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
> >
> > Also, as a side question--what is the maximum realistic amount of
> Russian settler colonialism that you can see by the present-day with a
> PoD of January 1, 1914 or later?
> >

What about simply having a large-scale construction boom and then having Russians buy apartments or houses there from the native Turks (or Greeks, or Armenians)? But of course a lot of Russians might be too poor for this for a while, but it might become feasible in the late 20th century once Russia will actually become a fully developed country, no?

Trolidous <trolidous@go.com> on Wed, 7 Jul 2021 11:54:21 -0700 typed
in alt.history.what-if the following:
>
>In areas around Istanbul however, there are going to be a
>lot of people that figured they had personal property rights
>under the Turkish government.

Which rights the Ottomans took over from the Romans, who inherited
from the Greeks, who originally colonized the area.

I've been told that the "fun" place to practice Law is in Israel.
You have Israeli law, British Mandate law, Ottoman law, Crusader
kingdoms, Imperial Rome, Hellenist Law, "Judean" Law. Heck for all I
know, Canaanite, Hitte and Egyptian! "If it weren't for the
occasional war and the destruction of the Royal archives ..."
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On 7/8/21 2:42 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> On 7/7/2021 5:45 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>> On 7/5/21 10:23 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>>> Why was it not interested?
>>
>> Why should it be? Anatolia was not particularly desirable,
>> nor was it vacant, nor was it adjacent to Russia.
>>
>
> Two-for-three--MAYBE. Possibly one-for-three.
>
> It was undeniably not vacant.
>
> As for "desirable", Anatolia is probably *still* more livable than most
> of European Russia and likely *all* of Asian Russia.

European Russia is temperate forest.

Anatolia is semi-desert. Much of it is essentially
uninhabited even today (< 1 person/sq km).

> And it *is* adjacent.

Adjacent to Armenia, not Russia.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Friday, July 9, 2021 at 4:30:01 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/8/21 2:42 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> > On 7/7/2021 5:45 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> >> On 7/5/21 10:23 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> >>> Why was it not interested?
> >>
> >> Why should it be? Anatolia was not particularly desirable,
> >> nor was it vacant, nor was it adjacent to Russia.
> >>
> >
> > Two-for-three--MAYBE. Possibly one-for-three.
> >
> > It was undeniably not vacant.
> >
> > As for "desirable", Anatolia is probably *still* more livable than most
> > of European Russia and likely *all* of Asian Russia.
> European Russia is temperate forest.
>
> Anatolia is semi-desert. Much of it is essentially
> uninhabited even today (< 1 person/sq km).
>
> > And it *is* adjacent.
>
> Adjacent to Armenia, not Russia.
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Armenia was a part of Russia back then, no?

On 7/27/21 2:13 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> Armenia was a part of Russia back then, no?
The Russian Empire, not Russia. And half of
Armenia lay inside side Turkey, between Russian
territory and Anatolia.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 7/9/2021 5:29 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 7/8/21 2:42 AM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>> On 7/7/2021 5:45 PM, Rich Rostrom wrote:
>>> On 7/5/21 10:23 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>>>> Why was it not interested?
>>>
>>> Why should it be? Anatolia was not particularly desirable,
>>> nor was it vacant, nor was it adjacent to Russia.
>>>
>>
>> Two-for-three--MAYBE. Possibly one-for-three.
>>
>> It was undeniably not vacant.
>>
>> As for "desirable", Anatolia is probably *still* more livable than
>> most of European Russia and likely *all* of Asian Russia.
>
> European Russia is temperate forest.
>
> Anatolia is semi-desert. Much of it is essentially
> uninhabited even today (< 1 person/sq km).
>

And yet it supported a civilisation even back possibly *before* the
Bronze Age, while European Russia hosted nomads into the post-Roman era.

I think you're underestimating the effects of the Russian winter on
whether European Russia is otherwise desirable.

Like Wolf and I said, Anatolia is largely the same type of terrain as
the Great Plains (away from the water) or California (especially near
it), though also like both of Colorado and California, it has mountains
that could serve as "hill stations outside of the Raj".

Those are not deserted places and Anatolia would probably support
RUSSIANS better and possibly in greater numbers than it does Turks.

>
>> And it *is* adjacent.
>
> Adjacent to Armenia, not Russia.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

On 8/3/21 2:39 PM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
> Anatolia is largely the same type of terrain as the Great Plains ...

_Russia_ is like the Great Plains. That is, the Russian steppe
is climatically similar to the Dakotas and Nebraska.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.